JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VI, Ranchi whereby Civil Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 (arising out of Original Suit No.18 of 2014) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. It appears that Original Suit No.18 of 2014 filed by the opposite party Lakhi Devi (plaintiff) for partition of their ancestral properties jointly possessed by plaintiff and defendants and to carve out her one-fifth share and allot separate possession. The said partition suit was decreed on the basis of joint compromise between the parties. The joint compromise petition was purported to be filed by the plaintiff Smt. Lakhi Devi and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 (opposite party Nos.2 and 4 and petitioner herein) along with defendant No.4 Most. Bachan Devi (since deceased). In terms of compromise Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out separate Takhta as per the order passed in the said partition suit on 27.07.2015 and the Report of the Pleader Commissioner was also accepted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.03.2016, accordingly, direction was given to prepare final decree which was signed on 05.09.2016. In view of final decree passed in the above partition suit, the plaintiff Lakhi Devi has filed Execution Case No.248 of 2016 which has been resisted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.140 of 2019 against the final decree passed in said partition suit before Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 19.11.2022. Against which the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.210 of 2022 before this High Court which was permitted to be withdrawn by terms of order dated 20.02.2023 with liberty to approach the same Court in which compromise was recorded and as such, Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 has been filed which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025 against which present revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record of the case along with impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Member of Scheduled Caste and an illiterate woman. The plaintiff/opposite party No.1 taking undue advantage of her illiteracy fraudulently got her thumb impression on the compromise petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Member of Scheduled Caste and an illiterate woman. The plaintiff/opposite party No.1 taking undue advantage of her illiteracy fraudulently got her thumb impression on the compromise petition. Although, the contents of the said compromise petition were neither read over nor explained to her in Hindi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above compromise decree on following grounds :- (i) In the course of preparation of final decree, Pleader Commissioner appointed by the Court had served no notice upon the petitioner Mini Devi rather it is obvious from the receiving of summon issued by Pleader Commissioner that on behalf of petitioner and all other defendants, the notice was received by one Rajesh son of defendant No.2, which was never communicated to the petitioner. (ii) As a matter of fact, Lakhi Devi (plaintiff), Pusan Devi and Kalo Devi (defendants) have already sold their share in Plot No.1411 in the year 2010 and purchasers were given possession over the respective purchased property, in spite of, possession of purchasers, fraudulently, they have been allotted share in the said plot also. (iii) The report submitted by Pleader Commissioner also does not find thumb impression of the petitioner. The petitioner along with plaintiff and other defendants has a small residential house over Plot No.1412 and except this residential plot, she has nothing for her residence but the said plot has been allotted to the plaintiff by fraudulent means at the time of preparation of final decree. (iv) The petitioner due to wrong advice initially filed a Civil Appeal No.142 of 2019 before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed, thereafter, she filed Second Appeal No.210 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 20.02.2023 with liberty to approach the concerned Trial Court in which compromise was recorded. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.34 of 2023 was filed before the concerned Trial Court which has been dismissed. (v) It is trite law that any judgment/decree obtained by fraud is 'Non est' in the eyes of law but the learned Trial Court without appreciating the facts deposed by the witnesses in the said miscellaneous case has passed absolutely illegal order. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.34 of 2023 was filed before the concerned Trial Court which has been dismissed. (v) It is trite law that any judgment/decree obtained by fraud is 'Non est' in the eyes of law but the learned Trial Court without appreciating the facts deposed by the witnesses in the said miscellaneous case has passed absolutely illegal order. (vi) One of the defendants namely Bachan Devi who is mother of the petitioner died on 02.01.2018 and even after death of Bachan Devi final decree has been prepared without apportionment of the share of deceased amongst the remaining shareholders, i.e., plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned Court below is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that no material has been brought on record by the petitioner before the concerned Trial Court while filing the Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 showing that the petitioner was in any manner defrauded by other parties to the suit or put under pressure or undue influence of any kind to sign the compromise petition. It is further submitted that the compromise petition filed before the concerned Trial Court bears the thumb impression of the petitioner which has been duly verified by the advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar, who was also representing the other defendants. The said compromise was duly verified by the learned Trial Court, accordingly, preliminary and final decree were prepared. Subsequently, the petitioner alone was dissatisfied from the share of property allotted to her and started beating hot and cold at the same time objecting against the compromise itself. The learned Trial Court has examined the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and after analysis of evidence arrived at right conclusion that the decree was not vitiated from any fraud or undue influence. Accordingly, dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by way of this revision which is fit to be dismissed. 6. For better appreciation of the points of argument raised on behalf of petitioner, relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are extracted hereunder :- Order XXIII Rule 3. Compromise of suit. 6. For better appreciation of the points of argument raised on behalf of petitioner, relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are extracted hereunder :- Order XXIII Rule 3. Compromise of suit. - Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall Order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit]: [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.] [Explanation. - An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule;] Order XXIII Rule 3-A. Bar to suit. – No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. 7. Considering the object and scope of the compromise or settlement in case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2628 quoting the aforesaid provisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded following conclusions in para 17 of the said judgment which reads as under :- "17. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of Order XXIII can be summed up thus: (i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC. (ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1 Order XLIII. (ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1 Order XLIII. (iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A. (iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order XXIII." Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the Court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. In that event, the Court which recorded the compromise will itself consider and decide the question as to whether there was a valid compromise or not. This is so because a consent decree is nothing but contract between parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the Court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on the validity of the agreement or compromise on which it is made. 8. In the instant case from going through the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has levelled imputations against the plaintiff/opposite party No.1 taking undue advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner fraudulently got her thumb impression over the compromise petition. Although, the contents of the said compromise petition were neither read over or explained to the petitioner in Hindi and other arguments are based on factual aspects post compromise decree touching the question of merits like a contested case. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 was filed not only to set aside the compromise between the parties but also the final decree prepared in pursuance thereof. The learned Trial Court has recorded specific findings that the compromise petition was filed jointly by both parties duly identified by their learned counsels and also verified by the Court since after the passing of preliminary decree on the basis of compromise six years lapsed but no challenge was ever made disputing the compromise on grounds of fraud, mistake, undue influence or misrepresentation as is subsequently pleaded by the applicant. The parties were also provided opportunity to plead their evidence in support of their allegations but no such materials have been brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid grounds which vitiates the compromise decree. The learned Trial Court has also taken into notice that second appeal was also preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed. Thereafter, Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed to make takhta according to 1/5th share to each member as mentioned in the joint compromise petition. The learned Trial Court has also formulated twin questions to be decided in the miscellaneous case filed by the present petitioner :- (I) Whether the petitioner has been able to prove fraud upon her for obtaining compromise and such compromise has been filed keeping the petitioner in dark ? (II) Whether Pleader Commissioner has filed report without measurement and following procedure of law ? He has also taken evidence oral as well as documentary of both parties and thereafter passed a reasoned order that the applicant has miserably failed to prove any fraud or any undue influence rather she has voluntarily put her R.T.I. over the compromise petition which was duly verified by her counsel. The report of Pleader Commissioner was also submitted after preparation of final decree. Accordingly, dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. 9. I have meticulously inspected the record along with impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and opposite parties. 10. The Revisional Court has a limited jurisdiction to delve upon the question of jurisdiction and propriety of the order and cannot proceed to decide factual aspect of the matter. 11. It appears that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and in a threadbare manner has decided the miscellaneous application filed by the present petitioner with sound reasons based upon evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same questions before this Court but considering the overall aspects of the case, I do not find any reasons to take a different view than those of the learned Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision which stands dismissed. 12. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.